THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238622, December 07, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY LICAROS Y FLORES, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 is the Decision2 dated August 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08235 which affirmed the Decision3 dated March 16, 2016 of Branch 214, Regional Trial Court (RTC), x x x x x x x x finding Randy Licaros y Flores (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
That on or about the 9th day of April 2009, in the x x x x x x x x Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA],5 against her will and consent.During his arraignment on February 15, 2011, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge against him.7 Trial ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
5.1. On April 9, 2009, he and his cousin, [EEE], among others, were drinking gin at x x x x x x x x . At around 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, AAA joined them. When their drinking session ended at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, he saw AAA lying in front of the door of the house. His mother instructed him to bring AAA to the second floor of the house since they were about to sleep. Together with [EEE], they brought AAA upstairs, after which, they went down and continued drinking. [His sister,] [FFF], who was at the second floor "texting", saw AAA being assisted by the accused. She ([FFF]) slept at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening. When she woke up at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, AAA was already gone.14
In the present case, it has been sufficiently established that the accused-appellant employed force in order to succeed in his lustful act. AAA testified that as soon as she was laid down on the floor, accused-appellant went on top of her, and pinned her hands to her chest as he removed her undergarments and inserted his penis into her vagina. The medico-legal report also revealed the presence of shallow healed lacerations at 3 and 9 o'clock positions and deep healed laceration at 6 o'clock position. Furthermore, the findings stated that there is clear evidence of previous blunt force or penetrating trauma. Clearly, the evidence shows that the accused-appellant employed force in order to attain his lustful act. And, when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.24Thus, the instant appeal.
In an attempt to discredit the above-quoted testimony, accused-appellant posits that AAA's story was highly doubtful and inherently impossible due to the close proximity of her relatives and some neighbors to her bedroom where she was supposedly raped. He further questions AAA's failure to shout for help, or make any noise considering the presence of other people in the house during the incident.35 Lastly, he asserts that the absence of any physical injury on AAA necessarily implied the lack of force or intimidation during the alleged commission of the rape.36
PROS. LALUCES Q: Good Morning [AAA], during the last hearing where you actually was not able to continue on testifying, I asked you, my last question was who actually assisted you in going to the room where you have to pass through this ladder which you identified previously, can you be able to tell us now who actually assisted you? WITNESS A: My cousin ma'am. Q: Who is this "pinsan" you are referring to? A: Randy Licaros ma'am. Q: Who is Randy Licaros in this trial? xxx INTERPRETER Witness is pointing to a person inside the court room wearing a yellow shirt and when asked to identify his name as Randy Licaros.31 xxx PROS. LALUCES Q: What happened after he assisted you in going to the second floor, in your room? A: As I went upstairs he assisted me to lie down ma'am. xxx Q: After he assisted you to lie down on the floor what happened next? A: After lying down I was shocked because he suddenly went on top of me and kissed me on the neck downwards ma'am. Q: You said you were shocked when he suddenly kissed you downwards, what did you do when he did this to you? A: I was shocked I pushed him away, I was kicking and I was not able to shout ma'am. xxx Q: Now you also mentioned that you tried to kick him, what happened with this action that you did to the accused? A: He did not stop ma'am. Q: How about your hands madam, where were your arms at the time that the accused was on top of you? INTERPRETER Witness is demonstrating clenched fist on top of her chest. Q: How about the hands of the accused if you recall [AAA]? A: One hand is pulling down my shorts and my underwear ma'am. Q: How about the other hand [AAA]? A: The other hand he was trying to push my hand on my chest ma'am.32 xxx Q: Now [AAA], I'll go back to my question, after he was able to pull down his own shorts and pull down your shorts and your underwear, what happened next? A: "Ipinasok niya po yung ari nya sa ari ko."33 xxx COURT By the way madam witness, before you proceed that question you said "pinasok ang ari" was he able to do that, was he able to successfully do that? This is an offense that carries a very heavy penalty so you cannot just manifest that he did that and that's all, you have to tell the court what happened. A: "Nung pinasok nya po ang ari niya sa ari ko." Q: What does it mean? You have to tell the court. A: "Labas, pasok ang ari niya sa ari ko po."34
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated September 13, 2017, rollo, pp. 13-14.
2Id. at 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 38-52; penned by Presiding Judge Imelda L. Portes-Saulog.
4 Records, p. 1-2.
5 The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes;" Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
6 Records, p. 1.
7 See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at 56.
8 As culled from the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, CA rollo, p. 74.
9Id. at 75-76.
10Id. at 76-77.
11Id. at 77-78.
12 CA rollo, pp. 78-79.
13 See the Initial Medico-Legal Report signed by PCI Jesille Cui Baluyot, M.D., Duty Medico-Legal Officer, records, p. 11.
14 CA rollo, p. 30.
15Id. at 38-52.
16Id. at 51.
17Id. at 50.
18Id. at 48-49.
19Id. at 49.
20Id. at 51.
21Rollo, p. 2-12.
22Id. at 11.
23Id. at 7.
24Id. at 10-11.
25 As culled from the Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
26Id. at 33-34.
27People v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 303, 306-307 (2000).
28 577 Phil. 546 (2008).
29Id. at 562.
30Id. at 563, citing People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007). Emphasis ommitted.
31 TSN, October 11, 2011, pp. 3-4. Italics supplied.
32Id. at 5-7. Italics supplied.
33Id. at 8-9. Italics supplied.
34Id. at 11-12. Italics supplied.
35 See Brief for the Accused-appellant, CA rollo, p. 31.
36Id. at 33.
37People v. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881, 892 (2017).
38Id.
39Id., citing People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 815 (2009).
40 See People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).
41 See People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, 877 SCRA 424, 440.
42People v. Barangan, 560 Phil. 811, 836 (2007), citing People v. Villaflores, 255 Phil. 776, 784 (1989).
43 See People v. Ramos, supra.
44People v. Descartin, Jr., supra note 37 at 894, citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576 (2014).
45 See People v. Deloso, 822 Phil. 1003, 1013-1014 (2017), citing People v. Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985 (2000).
46 See People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368 (2012).
47 See People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 555 (2018), citing People v. Lumaho, 744 Phil. 233, 243 (2014).
48 Item II(1) of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole' in Indivisible Penalties," dated August 4, 2015 provides:cralawred49 See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).II.
In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":cralawred
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole;